True atheism has nothing to do with the materialistic. And as I mentioned, putting value into the only life that we have and thinking about our moral legacy can produce a much deeper moral thinking than believing your consciousness just continues.

You can easily apply a nihilism to such afterlife ideals as well since if there's an afterlife, then this life doesn't matter that much. These are the same principles that much of the islamic extremists operate under, enforcing a deep and soul crushing nihilism to the actions in this life, in order to reach paradise.

If people viewed their existence in this life as the only thing that will exist for them and that the moral legacy of their life will be the only thing people remember them by, then the drive for better moral behavior can increase since the life right now must be the one to be good and if all treat others well, then all will benefit from this only life.

It's the lack of correlation between a lack of an afterlife and good morals that I find is the problem here. And that the materialistic is a nihilistic behavior, when it's rather operating on another type of belief system. — Christoffer

A nicely phrased summary of the matter. Religious nihilism is a real concern.

The materialistic lifestyle is a lifestyle that appears throughout society, regardless of religion. — Christoffer

A critical point. I spent significant time with what can loosely be called the New Age movement in the 1980's - assorted mystics, Gnostics, Buddhists, theosophists, progressive Christians, etc. Amongst them were exactly the same greedy appetites for status and stuff - cars, real estate, holidays abroad, swimming pools and fashion. There is really no necessary connection between a belief in the transcendent and good stewardship of the environment and/or moderation. I did however see more restraint and considered behavior exhibited by atheist Epicureans.

My working definition is caring about someone’s well being, and wanting to see them flourish. — Mikie

It’s on the way but you can feel like this about some goldfish. For me this misses out on love being more like a great big electrical experience, galvanised by devotion and sacrifice.

I'm not sure what it is you are arguing. I'll move on. Thanks for the chat.

Thanks. it’s entirely my fault. I don’t really have the right disposition. But I love a good overview.

That’s awesome! I wish there were more tools like this. That said, the complexity of this material just confirms why I have avoided philosophy for the most part.

I'm not sure if utopianism is synonymous with laissez-faire materialism though — Pantagruel

What is laissez-fair materialism? I was saying that many secular humanists are progressives and believe in helping to make a better world for future generations.

The belief in "progress" that says things are always getting better. When that is getting less true every day. — Pantagruel

Secular humanists tend to hold that progress cannot be taken for granted, nor is irreversible. We only have to look at Afghanistan, say, to see how progress on women's issues has been rolled back. Or Trumpism in the US... Progress is earned gradually across many painful battles and can be set back in an instance. Of course, the notion of progress is itself subject to some scale or set of values.

But I am still waiting to get a clearer idea from you about this.

I see a lot of materialism consuming, polluting, and destroying. — Pantagruel

I'm still not sure what you have in mind. Can you provide examples?

Hopefully an newly enlightened social consciousness is awakening, in the collective-ecological spirit championed by many indigenous groups. — Pantagruel

Wishful thinking. Corporate power and capitalism is likely to be too strong to allow for this to become anything more than decorative filigree.

The world needs some kind of fundamental change, because every indication is that we have been on a collision course with disaster since industrialization. — Pantagruel

Could be. Which is why I was a Marxist back in the 1980's. But the problem with revolutions is the morning after, as Žižek likes to point out.

I see a lot of materialism consuming, polluting, and destroying.
— Pantagruel

Can you provide an example that connects directly the lack of belief in superphysicalism and this? — Tom Storm

Can you provide a good example?

Anyone who believes that personal responsibility transcends the limits of material life perhaps is not fundamentally a materialist then. :wink: — Pantagruel

I'd say physicalists tend to hold utopian visions of a better future for their descendants.

I see a lot of materialism consuming, polluting, and destroying. I don't see a lot of "materialist conservation." I do see a lot of spiritually motivated conservation efforts, people who are aware of the significance of the health of natural systems in a cosmic sense. — Pantagruel

Ok, well we are at an impasse then. :wink: As someone who has worked with the Green movement here I can say that it is very rare to meet someone who is not a secular humanist.

I think you may need to separate the word 'materialism' as in consumer capitalism from 'materialism' as in non-transcendence. They are not necessarily connected. Materialists are generally known as physicalists or naturalists these days, the thinking having evolved.

I see a lot of materialism consuming, polluting, and destroying. — Pantagruel

Can you provide an example that connects directly the lack of belief in superphysicalism and this?

I think great leaders ride on a wave that is created by the circumstances of the moment. I think we should be paying more attention to the masses and what is driving them. Why are so many clinging to a tribe, instead of their own comprehension of the good? — Athena

Agree. Humans are tribal creatures and understand themselves in relationship with other humans. We borrow from each other, we imitate each other, we value what others value, we value how we are seen by our tribe. Seems pretty natural to me that human value systems reflect the shared values of a community (intersubjective agreement) rather than individual values. When you think of strong communities around the world, they tend to share presuppositions, origin stories, and values. Leaders are often those who know how to tell a compelling story using those presuppositions and values in an exciting way.

We are totally confused and screaming for a great leader who can put an end to this chaos. — Athena

Or bring a different kind of chaos which looks like order.

I suspect the end of the metanarrative has led us to an atomized culture of chaotic pluralism and divergent values, eroding the idea of a single unified culture (which was probably always a type of myth) which could be led under a unified vision. You can see how 'Make America Great Again' is an appeal to get back to shared presuppositions of a 'golden era' which many seem to fondly recall or imagine to have existed. Great leaders often search for and develop the great story which will bring everyone together.

I can imagine a Transcendentalist who doesn't care about the future because we reap our benefits in heaven, and a materialist who does because they realize that those are their family members and they are committed to family.

But the important part is whether or not they believe they are responsible for the future or not. The metaphysics is just a dressing to that. — Moliere

:up:

The materialists/naturalists I've known tend to have a reverence for life and align themselves with conservation and environmental causes on the basis that life is to be preserved and the conditions of life should be improved for future generations.

I think what's being put to us in the OP is a variation of a classic (and limited) Christian apologist's question - what reason do you secular humanists have to be morally good if there is no God? The polemical argument being that if this life is all there is, why would we care what happens to us or the environment? It's curious to me that there are people who think nothing matters if there is no transcendental realm. I don't think I have ever met a materialist/physicalist/naturalist holding that position.

All things being equal, would you rather trust the ethic of someone whose actions are premised around the belief that, when you're dead you're gone. Or someone who believes in the idea of an ongoing responsibility for deeds? — Pantagruel

Most likely I’d trust the person who makes no appeals to unknown worlds or powers and takes seriously the status of an ongoing physical world. Perhaps this comes from hours spent arguing with Christians who say climate change either isn’t real or doesn’t matter because God has it all under control. Generally the people who you have described as ‘when you’re dead, you’re gone’ hold a concomitant belief - ‘this is the only world there is so we must take care of it.’ But no doubt there are outliers in all camps.

:up:

Are we great because of a few great men such as Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Nietzsche, George Washington, or Donald Trump or are we great because we are united and socialized so that together we can imagine and manifest great things? — Athena

I don't think it's an either/or. Different situations have different explanations. My own view is that greatness is a poor word. It implies too many other dubious, almost transcendental categories - magnificence, sagacity, meritoriousness, pansophism, etc. I'd prefer to describe significant people and the era they are in.

I think the 'great man view of history' as it is often called is just a convenient way to shorthand our understanding. And the personification of an era is irresistible when we come to telling explanatory narratives. Look at the hold Napoleon still has on parts of Western culture.

Significant figures in history generally rely upon others - supporters and enablers - or upon situations that others have put into play - political instability, a knowledge base, etc. And there are all sort of reasons why a significant figure might resonate and together with others become historically important. A simple by-product of human tribalism is the tendency to project upon leaders or innovators all sorts of magic powers or extraordinary attributes of self-creation and individualism and to celebrate them like demigods. Or even as the incarnation of egregious and preternatural malevolence.

That's some lovely writing. Well put.

It would have taken longer for us to get the kind of "anything goes" media we have now that has evolved even more since social media, and the echo chamber. Technology also has a huge influence of course. Movies and tv would have possibly continued to be a kind of restricted, less grit, sarcasm, violence, sex, realism perhaps. It would have been more gradual. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I think a case can be made for this.

Has this thread been partly motivated by you asking yourself, how did we end up in the cesspit we have now?

Incidentally, have you ever seen the 1976 movie, Network? It kind of prefigures the mercenary media, reality TV, emotion driven, content free filth we are now awash in.

Especially with the assassination of JFK, there is this underlying idea that if JFK wouldn't have been assassinated, then everything would have been better. — ssu

And this is key to the conspiracy theories. If Kennedy was going to make positive changes, then there was 'good reason' for vested groups to take him out. Personally, I have tended to think Oswald alone did it, but a government conspiracy is almost a faith-based position with some folk these days. Discussing the evidence can be like arguing with apologists.

Writer and political pundit, Gore Vidal, who was a close friend of Kennedy's and a progressive writes often about how Kennedy was a friend of the military industrial complex and was pretty keen to escalate Vietnam. Vidal thought that if Kennedy had lived it would be business as usual. But who knows?

My broader question was not about foreign affairs as much as culture — schopenhauer1

Agree, I think the myth of Kennedy as a secular saint, the youthful, good looking, dynamic president, whose tragic, spectacular and enigmatic death led to the premature fall of Camelot is a powerful myth from so many points of reference. And sometimes cultures pivot on such myths.

Is nirvana or moksha even a worthwhile goal ? — Sirius

Every belief system seems to advocate for a first prize of some kind, whether that be liberation, a classless society, or the Kingdom of Heaven. We tend to go after the prize that appeals to our personal tastes and inclinations. Or the dictates of socialization.

How many of us would give up good food, beautiful women, a big library and a great music collection for a life in the monastery ? — Sirius

Depends on the monastery.

Maybe hedonism represents best of all the worst ways you can live your life. But no one wants to hear this. — Sirius

How would we demonstrate that any particular way of living is 'best'. Best for my temperament, or needs? Best for society? Best for 'truth? Pick your criterion of value.

And hedonism comes in hard and soft forms. It's not all cocaine and being blown by supermodels.

Personally, I have not come to any deliberate decision about how best to live. I like to improvise and wing it. I have not been socialized or raised in an Eastern religious traditions, so why should they feature in my life? I have read some Buddhism and some Hinduism and studied comparative religions briefly at University. There are some very interesting fames and model of reality provided by these faiths, but so what? Is there any reason why I would twist my life around a belief system I don't really understand and isn't part of my culture?

Many of us seem to be persecuted by the idea that we should be more serious, more transcendent, more ethical. I'm somewhat simplistic - I think we should just get on with living and try not to be a cunt.

Can you define searing here? Like having a searing critique? — schopenhauer1

I meant sneering. Sorry. Typo.

I also found it ironic that you couldn't understand the bit of trolling that political satire functions as when lampooning people's beliefs regarding political matters, yet, all you do is lampoon people's posts, trying to find some sort of ad hominem weakness. — schopenhauer1

I have tried to point this out myself. I suspect that if searing is foundational to a worldview, there's not much point engaging with them about this since they will just take it as evidence of your bad faith.

The thing is that you're not distinguishing between my words and your interpretation of my words. You're conflating the two. — baker

That’s funny coming from someone who has a habit of interpreting things in the most sneering manner possible.

This is not relevant to the thread and an ongoing distraction. If you want to explore further via PM’s fine, otherwise..

You and your deflection.

If I want to insult someone, I make that clear. — baker

You're assuming that you are entirely in control of your communication style. I'm not sure we know that. About anyone here.

Nice. Couldn't we also say - Mary has not studied or read quantum physics. Thus you ought not ask her to teach a university physics class in it.

The whole of Christian existentialism is about you and God alone. The other persons religious beliefs, if any at all, shouldn't matter. — Dermot Griffin

Fair point and if only there were more of this. My friend, a Baptist, used to say, 'I am a Christian but I am compassionate enough to keep this to myself'. Seems to me that these days mainstream Christianity is becoming more beset by garrulous apologists.

I don't think Christianity has this idea that if you pick the wrong church you'll burn forever. — Dermot Griffin

Have you read Bentley Hart's "That All Shall be Saved" I had a cursory read and it is an interesting alternative account of the Christian tradition as one of as 'hopeful universalism.'

I like to think that if there is a god (as Hart might understand one) this deity is more likely to support a sincere secular humanist than many of those believers whose faith is one of judgment, purity culture and material acquisitiveness. But all of this comes down to what god is for you.

I wanted to ask: why is this question given such low priority? The arts are filled with references to love. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Good question. The arts are filled with heightened emotionality, so an emphasis on the theme of love is not surprising. That said, in my experince people often denigrate or question the notion of love and find ways to annul it. I suspect that if you have felt it, is is harder to dismiss.

It seems to me that we might love someone, but not love everything about them. So, to some extent, Plato and Augustine seem to get something right. At the same time, we love people for who they are, in spite of their flaws, and so it seems like the personalist account also gets something right as well. To me, love seems to be about wanting the best for a person, but also a sharing in that goodness through a transcendent union. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Nice paragraph. For me the attribute which is often left out is how love makes you feel. Ineffable, subjective, a bit of a qualia problem and therefore for some people, intangible or BS.

I sort of tried to in the OP. Did this cursory attempt fail? Essentially, the distrust in government, the ramping of the draft, the free drugs and sex movement amongst the youth increased exponentially from 1964 onwards — schopenhauer1

I don't think it failed. I just can't see a direct connection between the assassination of a politician (even if he was charming and represented some symbolic Camelot bullshit) and free drugs and sex. Are you saying that these developing social behaviors were propelled and energized by disillusionment or that this mid century expression of hedonism was born in the face of political bewilderment and disappointment? I'm interested in your thesis but I just need to connect the dots.

The Free Speech movements, and the X rights movements, the libertine youth culture of the 60s and beyond to today, seemed to start very soon after his assassination... — schopenhauer1

How would one draw a direct connection between the assassination and these events? I hear about the libertine youth culture of the 1960's, but I wonder how extensive this was. All the people I know who were young back then were too busy working to be libertine for more than a few hours a week. Likewise I hear about all the things the 1980's were meant to be and although I was young then, I had no awareness of, or participation in any of it. All I could see in the 1980's was an increase in collective greed and narcissism and the neo-liberal noose tightening.

No problem.. I like diversity on this site and people who hold different views to my own. :pray: If everyone agreed, wouldn't life be boring?

When someone says, 'I have something for what ails you, my friend' they generally mean they want to help you with your concern. I would agree with @180 Proof that your position here could be understood to be ailing you. It may lead to distress and a source of confusions about the world you live in. But it's entirely up to you. We have seen people here who are so convinced of solipsism, they seem to have become unwell. Philosophy can fuck with people's minds and ability to function. That said, if you get too caught up in feeling slighted by any word that sounds critical from others then this site can be a constant source of feeling aggrieved.

I thought his using the word "ailing" in his reply was not a good manner in public writing. — Corvus

I see. I think this is just a turn of phrase.

I tend to think Kennedy assassination as a cultural touchstone and source of mythmaking and generic anger at 'the system' has had more influence than the actual assassination had on political outcomes. It, with Watergate, helped reinforce a culture of conspiracy and mistrust in institutions which has now become rampant.

I have no idea what influence the assassination (JFK's departure) had on the culture more broadly and whether it shaped the 1960s and 1970's in any way. I'm sure it is not hard to find a way to argue in either direction. Whether Kennedy would have pulled out of Vietnam and dismantled the Cold War (a kind of classic Oliver Stone view) is one of those perennial history parlor games.

Ok fair enough. Quite disappointed on your "vulgar" nature of response in hysterical tone. Enjoy your own recommended readings yourself. — Corvus

I don't understand your reaction. I read @180 Proof's contribution as a reasonable response, which was located in the philosophical tradition. I found it helpful.

It seems near (if not totally impossible) to conceive of a reality where there is no consciousness at any point in it's development. — Benj96

I don’t agree. Isn’t consciousness and metacognition a more recent development in the universe? The history of the universe being one that has been mostly without conscious creatures. If you mean it’s hard to picture something (a universe) without a point of view, then sure. Impossible. Which is why I don’t picture it.

Does that elevate the significance of the state to some fundamental level somehow? Why might any given universe demand, if not absolutely fundamentally need, conscious beings to work or "happen". — Benj96

No. And you seem to be loading the concept with biases by your use of language. The question isn’t one about 'demand' or 'need'. Where did this emotional urgency come from? The question is better stated as a simple ‘why’ is there consciousness?

It seems natural for a conscious being to think consciousness is special. I don't think such a question is answerable in the human terms of quotidian cause and effect.

How important should we make consciousness when we consider physics? This is sort of a hard problem question of a nuanced format. — Benj96

I think this is a question for someone with expertise in such subjects. Otherwise it’s like showing card tricks to a dog.

Is math discovered or invented? That question seems open to many and haunts your OP. The other question haunting your OP is idealism. If this latter were a true account then the universe has always been consciousness, not physical.

What is more interesting to me is why are you asking these questions in this way? It seems like you want to head somewhere specific about consciousness and meaning (transcendence?)

I think this fits my general sense of things. The cartoon is funny.

This is why a musician will claim that music provides the most primordial access to truth, a poet will insist that poetry is the most sublime art, a scientist will extoll their seemingly privileged access to what is truly there, and a philosopher will try to usurp all of these domains within their own. — Joshs

Yes, I've seen that. I've never developed enough of a passion for any subject to master it or become so focused or monomaniacal. Although perhaps my common man's 'can't be fucked' is a lens of its own.

I was thinking of the rather primitive versions, Pascal's Wager in particular. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Interesting. I've never quite understood this one. Pascal's Wager does seem like an affectation to me. Firstly, I don't know how one can believe something just for its potential utility. You either believe in god/s or not. Something either provides utility (in real time) or not. I don't accept that an atheist can adopt a genuine belief position simply on the basis of, 'what if I'm wrong?' Thoughts?

Secondly how do you pick the religion you are going to believe in pragmatically? If you pick Catholicism, then you go to hell if the Calvinists are right. What if Allah is god and Yahweh is heresy? What if the Zoroastrian deities are real? It seems a pretty limited wager.

If "sticking your head in the sand" works well enough, then you never have an incentive to go out and try to learn more. People tend to be, in economic parlance, utility satisfiers, not maximizers. They look for "good enough" in a lot of things. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is an engaging question. What reason's do people have for pursuing philosophy? I would suggest that philosophy often comes from dissatisfaction and/or curiosity. Not everyone seems to need philosophy. It's not an appetite everyone shares. No doubt many of us can afford to examine our presuppositions and reflect on life with more 'critical thought' and compassion. But philosophy? Philosophy seems to me to be an umbrella term for many kinds of enquiry and speculative thought. Much of it superfluous (and dull) to the average person (I include myself in the average category).

And you are the boss, you define all the terms, right. — baker

Did I say I am the boss and define all the terms? Or even anything close to that?

But if that's your indirect way of saying it is not meant as an insult, ok.

Critics of Trump & co. often become exactly like those they criticize. Don't you see the danger in that? — baker

I think my positioning of those voters is not unreasonable and it was posed as a question. Do you deny that the idea of political stupidity exists? It runs from the left to the right, so I am not fixated on T voters. And no, I don't think critics become like those they criticize. They might in some circumstances, but this is not necessarily the case.

As opposed to the condescension you accuse me of. — baker

Not condescension - you have been sneering and insulting. But this bickering is getting in the way of the thread and won't be resolved here.

And what does this have to do with our discussion?
I'm telling you my reasons for what I'm telling you. — baker

No. To me it looks like failing to make your case. What you said was this:

When Trump or someone like him wins again, it will be at least in part because his critics were playing on his terms.[/quote]

I simply asked you to connect the dots. Most people know this cliché about human behavior. I was merely asking you to demonstrate how this works in the Trump example.

Oh Jesus. I have simply identified a boundary. Identifying a boundary is not "sneering and insinuating". — baker

The following is not a boundary, it's a sneering jibe.

It is, because it means you're not open to discussion of this topic. And it's predictable that it probably won't go well. — baker

======

It's mostly irrelevant, until someone claims to be a representative of a religion or claims to have been such a representative in the past, and that as such, deserves special recognition and respect.

It's in the nature of religiosity that different people will have varying degrees of knowledge of and involvement in their religion.

But the extent of their knowledge of and involvement in their religion becomes relevant if they claim to deserve some kind of special recognition and respect. — baker

There's some merit in this argument as I see it. But when someone says I am a Muslim or I am a Christian - I don't get to say if they really are or not. They are not making a claim for special recognition or respect.

Heaven knows I'm no fan of religion. But I think many atheists, agnostics, and humanists grossly understimate it. As far as I'm concerned, these atheists etc. have nothing helpful to offer me as far as dealing with a religious problem is concerned. — baker

That may well be true. But what are you counting as a religious problem?

What is the secular thinker underestimating - the emotional support; the explanatory power; the metaphysical explanation, the meaning of religon?

I think we need our bodies to experience life and that every cell in our body is part of our consciousness, so if our consciousness were transferred to a different body we would have a problem identifying that different body as who we are. — Athena

Indeed - enactivism and embodied cognition.

Regarding the nature of the self, the enactivist approach, as I understand it, implies a view of the self as dynamically emerging from the ongoing interactions between an organism, its body, and the environment. The self is not considered as a static entity or an isolated internal entity, but rather as a process that is continually shaped by the activities and relationships of the organism.

To me it seems everyone has their reasons for beign attracted to certain ideas and models of reality or perception. It's not always easy to understand the perspective of others. I'm not really able to make sense of your position here, but that may be on me.

If things can vanish when they are not perceived, what about people?

But the OP is not about the actual existence of the world itself, but it is more about our reasoning for believing in the existence of the world. — Corvus

But our reasoning leads to views about the nature of reality.

My belief in the existence of the old house was proved wrong.  I thought to myself, well I should have no ground in believing what I am not perceiving in the world, and that is a rational and coherent way to think. — Corvus

All my immediate relatives are dead, as are a good number of my friends. I occasionally dream they are still living. Sometimes I imagine that the world I knew 30 years ago is still here and I can resume conversations with the long departed. Did those people ever really exist? Did those conversations ever happen?

I like it!